get_ui_engine_spec

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing return structure (meta, envelopes, messageTypes, shared types, rules, validationChecklist), the static/no-API/no-credits nature, and the feature flags documented. There is a mild tension with openWorldHint=true since the description insists it does not hit the API, but the core safety annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) are consistent and the cost/static disclosures are genuinely useful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The most important instruction ('ALWAYS CALL THIS FIRST') is front-loaded, and the sentence sequencing (when-to-call → what it documents → what it returns → how to narrow) is logical. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause is actionable rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the return sections and their purposes, covers both parameters' effects, and states cost/static behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and enums enumerate valid values, so the schema already carries baseline weight. The description nevertheless adds real meaning: it lists the effect of each section value, states the 'all' default, and explains that messageType overrides section — behavior the schema does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (FULL Convocore UI Engine schema) with scope clarified by referencing the feature flag vg_enableUIEngine: true. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like interact_with_agent and update_agent, which are referenced as consumers rather than duplicates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it ('ALWAYS CALL THIS FIRST when', with two concrete conditions a and b) and ties those conditions to the sibling tools interact_with_agent and update_agent. This is the strongest possible routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.